well productivity gains are largely met with higher standard of living, quality of life and the upward movement of the lowest classes, for one.

▲

passive 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not generally true in the US over the last 40 years, where the gains from productivity increases have been accumulated almost entirely by the top classes.

Yes, lower classes have access to many more conveniences then they might have had in earlier decades, but they are working far more hours, and their expected lifespan has started decreasing.

▲

calvinmorrison 2 hours ago | parent [-]

my dad grew up in a house without running water in a town where everyone worked in a mine and the lead was everywhere. he hitchiked to alaska for seasonal work in a fish cannery. Yeah I don't know... i think things are better than they were 40 years ago.

▲

Sl1mb0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are still people in America who live without running water. There are still people who work on fishing boats in Alaska. There are still people who hitchhike. This is literally just an anecdote trying to deflect from contemporary problems. I don't see any value in this sort of discourse.

Just because things may have been worse for specific individuals does *not* mean that current problems shouldn't be addressed.

▲

jmye an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Just because things may have been worse for specific individuals does not mean that current problems shouldn't be addressed.

Suggesting that things are better now than they were in 1986 for the overwhelming majority of people is not, in any way whatsoever, suggesting that "problems shouldn't be addressed". Come on. Y'all have got to start actually reading things before smashing that reply button.

▲

calvinmorrison 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

oh no an anecdote! run away!

	▲	shimman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You should, especially when said anecdote amounts to "shut the fuck up and be thankful to your corporate overlords peasant."

▲

lostlogin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> i think things are better than they were 40 years ago.

In relative terms, they seem much worse, Americans standing isn’t what it was. In absolute terms, I don’t know. What’s the measure?

	▲	jaggederest an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I like FSI, which is a dimensionless number taking into account basically the functioning of society and the likelihood for unrest. (Fragile State Index) It's the highest, at the moment, that it's been since the 1800s. The nadir for the US was in the late 40s early 50s when we had a 92% top marginal tax rate and extremely high social cohesion despite massive WW2 debts. Needless to say the late 40s and early 50s was not exactly utopia, but substantially more stable.
	▲	Wobbles42 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The measure was clearly stated: the life style of that one guy's dad. He's the official consumer well being canary.
	▲	chrisweekly 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What is the relevance of "Americans standings" circa 1986?

▲

ux266478 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Things are better for you than your dad, presumably. Unfortunately, many Americans still live like that, so the conclusion doesn't hold water.

▲

p-e-w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That hasn’t been true for decades in the West, even though per-capita productivity has been steadily rising since WW2.

▲

MichaelZuo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you sure?

From the data I’ve seen the bottom decile Americans consume significantly more per capita compared to even 2006.

e.g. plane travel was completely absent amongst the bottom decile in 2006, like so close to zero mileage per capita per annum it was a rounding error.

▲

king_geedorah an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Is bottom decile consumption a good measure of economic health? In a way it seems it could signal the opposite, ie in the past the bottom decile was saving that money in an effort to change their economic conditions vs spending it now could indicate a lack of hope for upward mobility.

To your example it seems worth noting that the quality of the air travel experience appears to decline over time as well.

	▲	MichaelZuo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Bottom decile consumption is the best measure of economic health for the bottom decile… it clearly cannot be the best measure across the entirety of the population. Real physical consumption is by far the hardest metric to game or play tricks with. Yes technically, some probably are trading a bit of their future prospects for a nicer flight schedule, less red-eyes, etc… But I don’t see how that is relevant at all?

▲

ux266478 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes actually, this is remarkably well studied:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

I hate to imagine what this graph looks like today, given the massive amount of inflation that's happened in the last 6 years.

▲

p-e-w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Plane travel is a very poor proxy for quality of life.

Home ownership, high-quality food, working hours etc. seem far more relevant.

	▲	MichaelZuo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Huh? People will, intentionally, work longer hours to afford more frequent plane travel. And to upgrade classes, perks, lounge access, etc… I’m pretty sure there are literally millions of people like that.